The diplomatic efforts to resolve the Russian-Ukrainian war,whether partial or complete,are difficult to decipher. While the term “game” may seem inappropriate given the humanitarian tragedy unfolding, the situation appears to be handled as a blend of poker and a crude replay of old imperialist realpolitik – a deadly combination. Trump’s negotiators employed a logic of escalating stakes. Initially, they presented proposals that appealed to Moscow, almost signaling a willingness to play to Russia’s hand. This, in our assessment, served two purposes: to gauge Zelensky’s willingness to compromise and to test Putin‘s immediate receptiveness to the proposals. These goals were achieved with mixed results. Kyiv, despite its suffering, recognized it was in a bluffing phase and chose to remain engaged despite holding a weak hand. Moscow remained unrevealing, proceeding as if the situation was only beginning. It’s implausible that Washington failed to recognise the untenability of the 28 initial points proposed,which essentially demanded the destruction of Ukraine’s international identity and undermined its sovereignty,with peace terms dictated by external actors. In exchange for what? While a potential divergence between Moscow and Beijing is discussed,no guarantees exist. US foreign policy teams are not naive; they might potentially be cynical, but they understand consequences.
As was to be expected, the players Putin aimed to eliminate – and that Trump perhaps initially underestimated – re-entered the arena: the expanded European bloc, alongside Britain, Canada, and potentially Japan. Russian diplomacy hoped these actors would concede and withdraw from negotiations, but this did not occur. Currently, it’s notable that europeans, despite being affected by the boldness of the American strategy, have chosen to leverage the plan put forth by Trump’s associates as a starting point. Essentially, they are willing to allow Russia some space, but not at the cost of erasing Ukrainian sovereignty. This means no acceptance of territorial gains not won on the battlefield, no dictates regarding the organization of Ukraine’s military, and no external decisions about Ukraine’s future alliance positioning. On these points, moral pressure may be applied to acknowledge realities (such as potentially foregoing NATO membership), but no further concessions will be made.
Trump’s adjustment came at a crucial moment. When he initially stated “take it or leave it,” he was signaling a willingness to negotiate adjustments to the plan. It’s crucial to consider that, despite everything…